IRJET- A Review on Seismic Analysis and Sustainability of Multi Storey Structure with and without Floating Columns

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 07 | July 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 2897
A REVIEW ON SEISMIC ANALYSIS AND SUSTAINABILITY OF MULTI
STOREY STRUCTURE WITH AND WITHOUT FLOATING COLUMNS
Er. Shashank Kalla1, Er. Om Prakash Singh2, Dr. Shailesh Choudhary3
1M.E. Scholar, Department of Structural Engineering, M.B.M. College J.N.V.U Jodhpur
2Ph.D. Scholar, Department of Structural Engineering, M.B.M. College J.N.V.U Jodhpur
3Associate Professor, Department of Structural Engineering, M.B.M. College J.N.V.U Jodhpur
---------------------------------------------------------------------***----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - With escalating urbanization, demand for
greater spaces either in form of parking spaces, or in form of
aesthetic view point or for ambiance from architectural verse
sometimes let structural designer to plan andactaccordingto
it. Construction of multistorey structures with floating
columns have been never a choice of preference for any
structural engineer rather than being a demand or
requirement from either owner or architect. But such
structures are highly susceptible to be damaged during
earthquakes in highly seismic zone as compared to normal
structures. The paper turns out with static analysis done for
multistorey structures with and without floating columns
along with different cases of building structure are analyzed
by varying the location of floating columns floor wise. The
structural response of building models with respect to storey
drift, storey displacement, base shear and time periodforboth
building. The analysis is carried out using different structural
analysis and design software SAP2000v17, STAAD-PRO and
ETABS.
Key Words: Floating column, Earthquake analysis, Multi-
storey, Linear static method, Time history method,
SAP2000v17, STAAD-PRO, ETABS.
1. INTRODUCTION
Now a day’s, multistorey structures in urban cities are
required to have column free space due to shortageofspace,
increasing population and also for aesthetic and functional
requirements. To cope with such problems of parking
accommodations or reception lobbies most of multistorey
structures in India today prefers to have an open first storey
as an unavoidable feature or finds it aseasiestsolutionto the
problem. Thus, to meet-up with situation use of floating
columns starts, now talking about floating columns it’s a
vertical member without a foundation i.e. it rests on a beam.
Being without foundation this floating columncomesupasa
point load over the beam and further this beamtransfersthe
load to the columns below it. The floatingcolumnsometimes
also serves purpose of architectural view and sitesituations.
The Provision of floating columns can be stated as most of
the buildings in India are covering the maximum possible
area on a plot within the available by laws. Thus most times
for fulfilling the desires we neglect behaviour of a building
structures during earthquakes as it depends critically on
geometry, size and overall shape, in addition with how the
earthquake forces are carried to the ground. Hence,
ultimately not following basics of dynamic of structuresthat
earthquake forces developed at different floor levelsneed to
be brought down along the height to the ground by the
shortest path; any deviation or discontinuity here with load
transfer path results in poor performance of the building
structure. It had been found most of the energy developed
during earthquake is dissipated by columns of the soft
stories. Further transfer of this energy leads to formation of
plastic hinges at the ends of columns, which transform the
soft storey into a mechanism finally in such casethecollapse
is unavoidable. Building structures with vertical setbacks
(like the hotel buildings, malls, etc. with a few storey wider
than the rest) are most susceptibletocausea suddenjumpin
earthquake forces at the level of discontinuity. Structures
with fewer columns or walls in a particular storey or with
unusually tall storey tend to damage or collapse which is
initiated in that storey. These are highly undesirable in
building built in seismically active areas usually the civil
engineering infra structures are subjected to two classes of
loads, static and dynamic loads. The staticloadssuchasdead
load and live load are independent with respect to time in
case of dynamic loads, they are changing with respect to
time. Most of the cases the structures are designed with the
assumptions that all the loads applied are static. Generally
the dynamic loads i.e. earthquake loads are not taking
account in the design because the buildingsarenotregularly
subjected to earthquakes, and also it takes more time to
solve these parameters in the analysis and also its more
difficult to solve the solution.
It has been analyzed by using various designs and structural
analysis software that for an open ground storey frame,
retrofitting by introducing reinforced concrete wall in the
open ground storey, offers the maximum strength and
ductility. Building structures with columnsthathangorfloat
on beams at intermediate storey and not to go all the way to
the foundation, have discontinuitiesintheloadtransferpath.
These floating columns are highly disadvantageous in a
building built in seismically active areas, especially after the
desolating Nepal earthquake 25 April 2015 and tragic
example of Bhuj earthquake occurred on 26 January, 2001
there have been a mutual effort throughout India to provide
more awareness, especially in practice and education, with
respect to earthquake resistant design of structures.
Sustainability of such building structures could be achieved
up-to a certain extent by providing seismic retrofitting, as it
can be done in different ways and to various extents. The

purpose should be to certify that the building takes all the
damage, but does not collapse when severe earthquake
occurs.
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
(1) Sukumar Bahera* - Their literature comes up with
stiffness balance of first storey and above storey are studied
with the aim to minimize irregularity occurring with due
presence of a floating column. To make sure how structures
under different earthquake excitation having a different
frequency content responses keeping the time duration
factor and PGA constant they develop FEM codes for 2D
frames with and without floating column. This behaviour of
building structure frames with and withoutfloating columns
is studied for cases under static load, free vibration and
forced vibration condition. For developingthefinite element
codes MATLAB is used as primary platform. Various
computations including inter storey drift, overturning
moment, base shear, time history of floor displacement has
been done for both the frames with and without floating
column. Furthermore,studyfordynamic analysisofframeby
varying the column dimension had also been done. It
concludes that, with increment in ground floor column
values for the maximum displacement and inter storey drift
seems to be reduced. The change in column dimension also
leads to variation in base shear and overturning moment.
(2) A.P. Mundada*, S.G. Sawadakar - The paper covers up
the study for architectural and the framing drawing of the
building structure havingfloatingcolumns.Acomparison for
a G+7 existing residential building structure with and
without floating column are taken to carry out entireproject
work. The design creation of models and equivalent static
analysis of the models both have been done through the use
of STAAD ProV8i. Various parameters including moment
distribution, importance of line of action of force, axial load
and seismic factors are studied for designed models. Thus,
finally provides an edge to find various analytical properties
of the structure as well as provides criteria for very
systematic and economical design for the structure.
(3) Shrikanth M.K*, YogendraR.Holebu – Theliteratureis
about comparison of study for the behavior of a building
structure having only floating column and having floating
column with complexities. Highrisebuildingstructureshave
been analyzed for different intensity of earthquake force.
The study consist of creation of four models and analysis for
lower and higher seismic zones at medium soil condition.
Analysis being carried outwithhelpofextended3-Danalysis
of building system ETAB version 9.7.4software.Resultbeing
computed in regarding soft storey, storey drift and
displacement for designed four models and finallytabulated
on basis of linear seismic analysis.
(4) Hardik Bhensdadia*, Siddarth Shah – Theirstudyis an
attempt made to evaluate the effects of floating column &
soft story in different earthquake zones by seismic analysis.
As the analysis yieldsperformancelevel ofbuildingstructure
for design capacity (displacement) carried out up to failure
and to meet out this requirement methodology of push over
analysis is being adopted as it helps in determination of
collapse load and ductility capacity of the structure. For
fulfillment of this objective three RC bare frame structures
constituting of G+4, G+9, G+15 stories respectively have
been analysed and compared for base force and
displacement of RC bare frame structure with G+4, G+9,
G+15 stories. Providing different earthquakezonesintensity
like Bhuj, Jamnagar and Rajkot using SAP 2000 14 analyses
package.
(5) T. Raja Sekhar*, P.V. Prasad – The study provides up
with the behavior of building frame structure with and
without floating column and is studied for different cases of
dynamics under static load, free vibration and forced
vibration condition. The results for same is being plotted for
both the frames with and without floating column by
comparing each other for different parameteroftimehistory
of floor displacement, base shear. A 3D model using the
software STAAD Pro V8i is created and equivalent static
analysis is carried out for the entire project. Comparison of
these models are been presented. This will help to find
various analytical properties of the structure and we may
also have a very systematic and economical design for the
structure.
(6) S.S. Kadam*, D.D. Mohite*,Ms.S.V.Lale*, Ms.Waykule
S.B*, C.P. Pise, C.M. Deshmukh, Y.P. Pawar - The study
comes up with the effect of varying the location of floating
columns floor wise of multi storey RC building structure.
Attempt to mark out various structural response quantities
of the building structure using static analysis has been done.
It was being observed that with introduction of floating
column at 1st floor base shear of such building decreases as
compared to building without floating column. Along with
that it was also being found that base shear increases from
1st floor. The final observations lead to mark that
displacement of each storey of floating column building is
more than compared to without floating column building.
(7) Susanta Banerjee*, Sanjay Kumar Patra – The study
point out the effect of stiffness of infill wall to the damage
occurred in floating column building for ground shakes.Non
linear analysis programmeIDARC-2Dhasbeenusedtocarry
out modeling and analysis work. By formulating modified
Park & Ang model damages occurred in beams, columns,
storey are studied. Due to shaking of ground overall
structural damage indices in buildings are also obtained.
Various dynamic responseparametersincludingstoreydrift,
lateral floor displacement, base shear and time period of
buildings are obtained and results are compared with the
ordinary moment resisting frame buildings. Formation of
plastic hinge, cracks, yields are also being observed during
analysis. The final conclusion was being made that lateral
floor displacement, storey drift of floating column building
with infill wall are reduced in comparison to that floating

column building without infill wall. It was also being
concluded that values for fundamental time period, lateral
floor displacement of floating column building are higher
than ordinary moment resisting frame.
(8) Prerna Nautiyal*, Saleem Aktar, Geeta Batham – For
various soil conditions, since there is no provision or
magnification factor specified in I.S. Code, hence the
determination of such factors forsafeandeconomical design
of a building having floating column is difficult there paper
investigate about the effect of a floating column under
earthquake excitation for differentsoil conditions.Thestudy
is done on bases of Linear Dynamic Analysis for 2D multi
storey frame with and without floating column. To meet up
the requirements the model of G+4 and G+6 building
structures have been created, having changing the position
of floating column. Furthermore, the response spectrum
analysis is done for both building structures. Different
dynamic response parameters including base shear and
moment for hard and medium soil conditionareobtained for
both building models.
(9) Sreekanth Gandla Nanabala*, Pradeep kumar – The
literature deals with the fact to find to parameters firstly,
whether structure is safe or unsafe with floating column
when built in seismically active areas and secondly, are
floating column in buildingeconomical oruneconomical.The
whole analysis is carried by modeling of G+5 storey normal
building and one with floatingcolumnbuilding.Thisanalysis
was done by use of SAP2000 external lateral load were
calculated manually using equivalent static method for
analysis created 2D 3model, model1, model2, model3.
Model1 being a normal building with same dimension of
beam and column, model2 being with floating column
building without changing dimensions and model3 being a
floating column building with changing dimension of beam
and column. Finally, comparingthemondisplacementdueto
lateral load in terms of model1, model2, model3 and also
based on stiffness & time historyanalysis.Tocheck economy
of both building compares steel and concrete quantity in
terms of model, model2, model3 and wasconcludedthatone
with floating columns requireslarger quantity withcompare
to one that doesn’t have a floating columns.
(10) Er. Ashfi Rahman* - The study comes up with
response spectrum method for static analysis and dynamic
analysis. It’s done for multi-storeyed building structures
with and without floating columns.Byvaryingthelocationof
floating columns floor wise and within the floor different
cases of the building structure is studied. The structural
response of different parametersofthebuildingmodelswith
respect to Spectral acceleration, Base shear, Fundamental
time period, Storey drift and Storey displacements is
investigated. STAAD Pro V8i software was used to carry out
the analysis.
(11) S.B.Talavara* - It gives a comparative study of seismic
analysis of multi-storied building structures consisting of
both cases i.e. with and without floating columns. The entire
analysis is done by takingup ResponseSpectrumAnalysis,as
per IS: 1893-2002. Different features of lateral stiffness
strengthening system, including lateral bracing, shearwalls,
increasing the column size in the soft ground storey. Project
modeling is done with ETABS 3D model and the comparison
of these models are been presented withtheircombinations,
and are proposed to reduce the stiffness irregularity and
discontinuity in the load path incorporated by the soft
ground storey and the floating columns respectively. The
study consist of two models A & B and each furthermore
having five different models (namely 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 2A,
2B, 2C, 2D, 2E) with each one having different structural
compositions, comparison and study of these different
models have been taken up. Variousparameterssuchasbase
shear, storey drift and displacement are within the
permissible limit except the displacement provided by Time
history analysis fornormal multistoreybuilding.Provisionof
floating column could be advantageous in increasingFSItoa
certain extent of the building but is a risky factor and
increases the vulnerability of the building. Multistorey
building with shear walls comes out with the peak value of
base shear in time history analysis. It was found that shear
wall retrofit is the best method of retrofit the soft storeyasit
also reduces the displacement of the whole structure and
offers the maximum strength (frequency) and ductility. The
base shear value shows up increase for buildings with steel
braced soft story in comparison to without steel bracing
indicating increase in stiffness and ductility of building. As
per final outcomes out of all the three methods used to
evaluate base shear, Multistorey building with shear walls
were found to perform better from the points of view of
strength, stiffness, ductility and frequency profile compared
to normal multistorey building.
(12) D. Annapurna, Sriram Nadipelli* - The paper deals
with the comparison of a G+5 storey building with all
columns and a similar structure without edge columns or
with floating columns, i.e. from the first story to the top
storey all columns are present except for the ones atground.
Thus, mechanism for load transfer goes from edge columns
to the interior ones present in the ground storey. Up to the
extent applying the static loadsboththestructuresarefound
be safe but as the dynamic loads like earthquake loads in
lateral direction the structure without edge columns is
unsafe, that is displacement ofthisstructureismorethan the
structure with edge columns and stiffness of a structure is
also less than the structure with edge columns. For study
three models 1 (normal), 2 (with floating column) & 3(with
floating column and increased structural components) all
having different specifications have been prepared using
structural design and analysis software ETABS. Due to
application of lateral loads in X and Y directions the
displacements of Model 2 and Model 3 building found to be
more than displacements ofmodel 1building.SotheFloating
column buildings are unsafe for construction when
compared to a Normal building. On mitigating the problems
of model 2 in model 3 building, it was found that floating

column building can be made safe by increasing the size of
transfer girder beams and size of columns adjacent to
floating columns to which finally load is transferred.
Calculating lateral stiffness at each floor for the buildings, it
is observed that model 2 and model 3 buildings that are for
buildings with floating columns will suffer fromextremesoft
storey effect, where model 1 being a normal one is free from
soft storey effect. So the floating column building is unsafe.
Furthermore, after theanalysingandcomparingthequantity
of steel and concrete for model 1 & 3 building, from which it
is identified that model 3 building has more quantities of
rebar steel and more concrete quantities than model 1
building. So the Floating column building will be
uneconomical when compared to normal building.Fromthe
time history analysis it is noticed thatthemodel 2andmodel
3 building is having more displacements than model 1
building. Hence, floating column building seems out to be
unsafe than a normal building.
(13) Shiwli Roy*, Gargi Danda de – The paper presentsthe
floating column and RCC column analysis on multistoried
building and analyzed by STAADPROV8i.HereG+3,G+5and
G+10 structures are analyzed and compared with
parameters shear force and bendingmoment.Theanalysisis
carried out on a building structure with floating columns.
The building considered is a multistorey building having
G+3, G+5 and G+10 structures. All three models having
different heights from 12 m, 18 m & 36 m are designed and
analyzed by creating fixed support on ground storey, by
assigning dead load & live load for floating column as well as
for proper RCC column. The analysis on floating column for
G+3, G+5 and G+10 structures observes that if the height of
the structure increases, theshearforceandbendingmoment
also increases. Following are some conclusion as done on
above study: Along with that it was observed that as the
situation and orientation of columns varies the value for
column shear also varies. On comparison for shear force for
G+3 with normal column, floating column (column removed
from G.F.) and floating column 1 (column removed between
F.F. & S.F.) the variation shows that the shear force is
maximum in floating column (column removed from G.F.)
the shear force increases by a value about 57% for G+3
(normal column) to G+3 (floating column) structures and
6.67% for G+3 (floating column) to G+3 (floating
column1)structures in column1 (column for G.F.) and in
column2 (column for F.F.) it increases by 56% for G+ 3
(normal column) to G+3 (floating column)structures and
3.42% for G+3 (floating column) to G+3 (floating column1)
structures. While on comparison for bending moment for
G+3 structure in normal column, floating column (column
removed from G.F.) and floating column 1 (column removed
between F.F. & S.F.) it was found that the variation in
bending moment shows that the bending moment is
maximum in floating column 1 (column removed between
F.F. & S.F.) the bending moment increasesby10.25%for G+3
structures in column1 (column for ground floor) and in
column2 (column for F.F.) it increases by 5.98% for G+3
structures.
(14) Sampath KumarM.P.*,V.S.Jagadeesh – Theliterature
analyze tall structures with floating column basically
includes a preparatory outline, theoretical outline,
advancement and clear investigation to securely convey
gravity and lateral loads. The outline criteria include
serviceability, strength, stability and human comfort.
Floating column is a vertical component which closes at its
lower load level and lies on beam and exchange the load of
the structure through column to beam. The conclusions as
per there study were that lateral displacement increases
with the height of the building. The displacement parameter
is more for the floating column buildings compared with the
regular building. Similarly, it was found building structures
displacement increases with the height of column. Mass
irregularities of buildingseemtoposseshigherdisplacement
than that of regular building and soft story building. Inter
storey drift increases from top storey, later the storey drift
reduces due to stiffness near fixed end at base. As the
stiffness and mass parameter increases the base shear also
increases. Base shear is observed lesser in the floating
column building when compare to regular building due to
decrease in column weight. Finally,fromthestudyconcludes
that as for as possible, the floating columns should be
avoided, especially in the seismic prone areas.
(15) Niteen Malu*, Amaresh.S.Patil – As per scope of this
literature a G+10 storey building structure is taken for the
analysis. Building frame being prepared in ETABS by
defining beam, column and slab. Slab was modelled as thin
membrane. Frame elements being taken as rigid. Hinges
being also assigned to these frame elements. These hinges
are default hinges available in ETABS. For seismic analysis
structures in earthquake zone II and zone V with soil type II
(medium soil) were considered. Four different models were
created in ETABS constituting of Regular building (with &
without floating columns) and Irregular building (with &
without floating columns). Their analysis and outcomes
include, as the magnitude of intensitywill bemoreforhigher
zones, a sudden increase in displacement about 18-23%
could be seen from lower zones to higher zones. It was also
observed base shear performance of buildings was more for
case of structure without floating column in comparison to
those with floating columns. The parameters like bending
moment and shear force in column where the floating
column is provided at storey 5 is found to be more about
45% and 40% in compare to similar storey without floating
columns.
3. CONCLUSIONS
After going through all above literature reviews there were
certain conclusions to be marked out for longer

sustainability of structures some of these marked out points
have been discussed below:
1. It was observed that building structures with
floating column comes out with less base shear as
compared to ones without floating column.
2. Displacement factor for floating column building
observes out to be more than compared to without
floating column building.
3. Talking about storey drift it was found to be more
for building structures with floating column as
compared to building without floating column.
4. From dynamic analysis point of view it was
observed that floating column at different location
results into variation in dynamic response.
5. Buildings with floatingcolumnobservedouttohave
more time period as compared to building without
floating columns.
6. It was also found that as shift of floating column
starts towards top of the building it results out in
increasing time period which is majorly because of
decreased lateral stiffness of the building.
7. As we increase the number of storey’s the inter
storey drift also increases. The storey drift is more
for the floating column buildings because as the
columns are removed the mass gets increased.
8. On calculation analysis of lateral stiffness at each
floor for most of the buildings it is observed that
floating column building will suffer extreme soft
storey effect where normal buildingisfreefromsoft
storey effect. Making the floating column building
unsafe.
9. After overall analysis of buildings, it was found on
comparing for quantity of steel and concrete it was
found there was increase in both physical
parameters for building structures with floating
column building than a normal building. Ultimately
making floating column building uneconomical.
10. From the study of all above literature review it was
observed that there is still a lot of study required to
make sure that provision of floating column in
building to be safe from earthquake point ofview.It
have been observed from almost all literature
review the building structures without floating
columns seems to give better resultsascomparedto
floating column building so morestudyrequiredfor
this. Hence, finally from the study it can be
concluded that as far as possible, the floating
columns are to be avoided especially, in the seismic
prone areas.
REFERENCES
[1]. Sukumar Behera Seismic analysis of multistory
building with floating column, Department of Civil
Engineering, National InstituteofTechnologyRourkela (May
2012).
[2]. A.P.Mundada Comparative seismic analysis of multi
storey building with and without floating column,
International Journal of Current Engineering and
Technology, Vol.4, No.5 (Oct 2014)
[3]. Shrikanth M.K. Seismic response of complex building
with floating column and without floating column,
International journal ofEngineeringResearch-Online.APeer
Reviewed International Journal. Vol. 2, Issue 4, (2014).
[4]. Hardik.Bhensdadia Pushover analysis of RC structure
with floating column and soft storey in different earthquake
zones, frame International Journal of Research in
Engineering and Technology. Vol. 4, Issue 4 (Apr-2015).
[5]. T. Raja. Sekhar Study of behavior of seismic analysis of
multistory building with and without floating column,
SciTech, Vol 2, pp 697-710, (2014).
[6]. Ms. Waykule S.B et al Comparative Study of floating
column of multi storey building by using software, Int.
Journal of Engineering Research and Application, Vol. 7,
Issue 1, ( Part -3), pp.31-38 (January 2017).
[7]. Susanta Banerjee and Dr. Sanjaya K Patro Estimation
of park-Ang damage index for floating column building with
infill wall, 55th Annual Technical, Journal of Orissa State
Centre, Institute of Engineers (India), pp.211-217 (2014).
[8]. Prerna Nautiyal Seismic response evaluation of R.C.
frame building with floating column considering different
soil conditions , International Journal ofCurrentEngineering
and Technology, Vol.4, No.1 (2014).
[9]. Sreekanth Gandla Nanabala Seismic analysis of a
normal building and floating column building, International
Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (2014).
[10]. Er. Ashfi Rahma Effect of FloatingColumnsonSeismic
ResponseofMulti-StoredRCFramedBuildings,International
Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, Vol. 4 Issue
06, (June-2015).
[11]. Rahul Kapase, Mukund Pawar, M.M. Deshmukh,
S.B.Talavara Effect of Seismic Retrofitting on R.C. Building
with Soft Storey and Floating Column, International Journal
of Engineering Trends and Technology, Vol. 46, No. 7, (April
2017).
[12]. D. Annapurna, Sriram Nadipelli Comparative study
of seismic analysis of a normal building and building with

floating columns, IJRET, Vol. 04, Special Issue: 13, ICISE-
2015, (Dec-2015).
[13]. Shiwli Roy, Gargi Danda de Behavioural studies of
floating column on framed structure, IJRET, Vol. 09, Issue:
09, (Sept. -2015).
[14]. Sampath Kumar M.P, V.S. Jagadeesh Effectoffloating
columns on seismic response of multistory building,
International Research Journal of Engineering and
Technology, Vol. 03, Issue: 09, (Sep -2016).
[15]. Niteen Malu, Amaresh.S.Patil Performance of RC
frame structure with floating column and soft storey in
different earthquake zones using pushover analysis,
International Research Journal of Engineering and
Technology, Vol. 04, Issue 09, (Sep 2017).
[16]. Vijayanarayanan. R, Rupen Goswami and
C.V.R.Murty Special class of open ground storey RC
buildings built in india unsafe during earthquakes
67Department of Civil Engineering, IIT-Madras. pp. 0147.
[17]. Agarwal Pankaj, Shrikhande Manish Earthquake
resistant design of structures PHI learning private limited
(2009).
[18]. Criteria for Earthquake Resistant design of structures,
Part1: General provisions and buildings, IS 1893:2002,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[19]. IS 875 (Part-I) Bureau ofIndianStandards(1987)Code
of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) for
Buildings and Structures: Dead Loads-Unit Weights of
Building Materials and Stored Materials (Second Revision).
UDC 624.042: 006.76.
[20]. IS 875 (Part-II) Bureau of Indian Standards (1987)
Code of Practice for Design Loads For Buildings and
Structures: Imposed Loads (Second Revision).
UDC 624.042.3: 006.76.

IRJET- A Review on Seismic Analysis and Sustainability of Multi Storey Structure with and without Floating Columns

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to IRJET- A Review on Seismic Analysis and Sustainability of Multi Storey Structure with and without Floating Columns

Similar to IRJET- A Review on Seismic Analysis and Sustainability of Multi Storey Structure with and without Floating Columns (20)

More from IRJET Journal

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

IRJET- A Review on Seismic Analysis and Sustainability of Multi Storey Structure with and without Floating Columns